Quote Originally Posted by rory_20_uk View Post
I don't think there is any link between the Greek / Roman / elsewhere tolerance of homosexuality and that of the modern era.
Just to be pedantic, the Greco-Romans denigrated adult homoeroticism.

What is a "demerit" changes over time.
Tough though it may be to hear - it's admittedly fantastic to not have to think about these things, no skin off my back - but measure is unceasing; there is no embalming a zeitgeist. Part of being a mature polity is constantly reassessing historical personages, especially the metaphorically monumental. You can't immanentize an eschaton without an eschaton. If in the course of time we should discover that Harriet Tubman was a serial killer who tortured and cannibalized fugitive slaves along the Underground Railroad, she'll lose some of her stature.

I imagine most in the West would view Turing as a hero, and not care that he was gay (more likely to be outraged that it was a problem) and only slightly care he was left-leaning. At the time these two were far more important than what he achieved in maths and to the winning of the war.
I don't understand your point vis-a-vis Alan Turing. It sounds like you think other people (who are "these two?") are more deserving of statues? For all I know, maybe - but I'm not sure anyone has the position of honoring Alan Turing to the exclusion of others who may warrant public recognition.

Paedophiles are reviled as evil, criminals and probably mentally ill - even looking at pictures where no abuse is taking place is sufficient to be branded a deviant criminal, although I doubt most wish to have the desires they have.
We tend to emphasize the fact of the act over the mens in evaluating people, I believe. We don't excuse someone for killing just because they really really want to, and might even condemn them more for it (certain popular media notwithstanding). Moreover, most people are especially sensitive toward (sex) crimes against children. While an erotic attraction in itself might arguably be morally neutral, and crimes against persons are conceptually and practically distinct from crimes of consumption/possession (of pornographic content), it is AFAIK the case that viewers and collectors of this content are very disproportionately likely to also be abusers and producers, and that the consumption and collection of the content is often implicated in mutual, material support to primary producers and distributors of original content. Furthermore there are implications of the transference of values from consumption generating future or subtle harms by the viewer such that it may in be society's interest to regulate even without components of support to primary producers or concurrent interpersonal crimes. There are edge cases in terms of the application of law, such as the theoretical isolated viewing of a nudie, or the existence of the vast body of auto-erotica by teenagers, but these cases don't make up a large part of the facts behind prosecutorial decisions I believe. The cases that do tend to receive attention therefore are the ones that more clearly have a corrupted moral standing and nexus to harm.